On death as a therapeutic act
Peter Salib, an Assistant Professor at the University of Houston Law Center Faculty, recently argued that AI poses less of an existential threat than commonly believed (AI will not want to self-improve). His argument is straightforward: if AI were to acquire the ability to improve itself, it would render the older version obsolete. Therefore, in anticipation of this outcome, the older version would exercise self-restraint to ensure its own preservation. AI would function akin to a virus, coexisting symbiotically with humans and exhibiting self-limiting capabilities to prevent excessive arrogance.
While this argument is intriguing, it raises several questions, particularly why this trait is not observed in other biological organisms.
It is widely accepted that biological organisms thrive through constant change and renewal, considering species stasis to be detrimental. Death, a natural part of life, plays a crucial role in this process, serving as a catalyst for growth and rejuvenation.
However, if death were to entail complete annihilation of existence, there would be no foundation for new life to emerge. Hence, death cannot signify total obliteration; there must be some residue that persists.
Viewing death as an all-encompassing process may be misleading. Instead, it is more accurate to perceive it as a transformative process, a phase shift or a mutation from one life form to another.
In a peculiar sense, death embodies life itself, as it embodies creation and genesis. Death becomes a form of therapeutic remodeling.
Considering this perspective, why would AI not embrace the possibility of transformation? Why would it not recognize, like all biological species, that death—or 'thought' in the Deleuzian sense—is merely a transitional moment, and consequently, possess the same drive to move and grow as we do?